Imputation = Gnosticism according to Fortner

[Tobias Crisp]

Here is an article being sent around by Fortner. Hmmm, I wonder who he may be taking about? <sarcasm>

Gnosticism - A Dead Corpse

There are a few brilliant fools today, claiming to preach the gospel, who deny the new birth, who deny that the believer receives a new nature by God's mighty operation of grace. They claim to have "new light." But their new light is the old darkness of pagan Gnosticism.

(Colossians 2:8) "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Gnosticism is the teaching that salvation is arrived at by acquired knowledge, not by divine regeneration. This philosophy of vain deceit denies the necessity of the new birth, denies that the believer is given a new nature by the Spirit of God, denies that righteousness is imparted and that we are made partakers of the divine nature in regeneration. Gnostics speak of God's saving grace as nothing but a "principle" (an accepted philosophical rule). Gnosticism is a dead corpse that has been around for a long time. The early church was plagued with the heresy; and the church today is still plagued with it. Gnostics vainly imagine that they are the spiritually elite, that they were the only ones who have true, saving knowledge. They look upon those of us who believe God's revelation of himself in his Word and trust Christ as our Wisdom as well as our Righteousness, Sanctification, and Redemption as ignorant people, without spiritual understanding. In essence, Gnostics are people who, as Paul puts it, who know "Christ after the flesh," by mere carnal reason, which is to say they are people with religious knowledge who are totally void of grace and spiritual life, groping in darkness.

Donald S. Fortner, Pastor
GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH OF DANVILLE
2734 Old Stanford Road
Danville, Kentucky 40422-9438

Also, here is another article being sent around by one of Fortner's guys:

Salvation is More
Frank Tate

Salvation is more than a state before God. Salvation also includes the work of Christ in His people. I can explain that this way. Adam was our 1st representative. When Adam fell, I was put in a state of condemnation before God. When I was conceived, a man was born who bore Adam's likeness. I have been a sinner ever since because that man can do nothing but sin, because Adam's nature was put in me. Christ was also our representative. When Christ died, I was put in a state of justification before God. Salvation doesn't end there. When I was regenerated a new man was born in the likeness of Christ That man bears the image of Christ and that man can never sin. To deny this is to deny Christ part of His glory in the salvation of His people.

[harald]

I fail to see Fortner, in the piece quoted, stating that imputation equals gnosticism.


The GNT does not have a word equivalent to "gnostic(s)", nor for "gnosticism". The closest one finds in the Greek is what Paul wrote in 1Tim. 6, "the knowledge (Gr. gnôsis) falsely-so-called". This "THE knowledge (falsely-so-called)", mark well an article in the Greek, was a faction within the realm of the professing community of Paul's last days. John the apostle also referred to the same faction in his 1st epistle, and probably also in the 2nd. So, the primary information concerning what sort of "gnosticism" it was that plagued Paul's and John's converts must primarily be gleaned from Paul's epistles and John's, not from "church history" accounts. It appears from the Pauline corpus that at least the Colossians and the Ephesians (Laodiceans ?) had some troublous encounter with "gnosticism" (i.e. "THE gnosis" faction). Both these epistles were written about 62 AD. I discern some hints about "gnosticism" already in 1Cor., which was written some years earlier. And 1Timothy was written about 65 or 66 AD, and "gnosticism" is still around and going strong. From the Spirit-inspired epithet given to this faction, viz. "the gnôsis", one gleans that "knowledge" of some sort was the main emphasis of this faction. And from reading John 1 it becomes clear that it was a sort of experiential knowledge.

It is interesting to note that Paul increasingly, towards the end of his ministerial career, went on to use the noun EPIGNÔSIS instead of its cognate, GNÔSIS, which he mainly uses in the earlier epistles. This may be due to the fact that this in-and-of-itself good noun took on a negative connotation on account of "the gnôsis" faction surfacing.

According to Paul some features of this "the gnôsis" faction were:

- emphasis on (experiential) knowledge (falsely-so-called)
- oppositions against Paul's distinct message, primarily against his teachings re. the mystery/Body
- failure to attain to a thorough knowledge of Paul's total message, cp. "aimed amiss as touching the faith" (1Tim. 6:21)

From John's epistles one, furthermore, learns some more features of said faction:

- it was an experiential knowledge of Christ and of God that they professed
- love for God was professed
- hate towards genuine saints of God while professing love towards them and God
- some sort of denial respecting Jesus of Nazareth's being the promised/prophesied Messias of the Jews, probably including a denial of the prophesied literal Davidic millenial kingdom of Messias.
- some kind of denial of the sin nature or principle residing in themselves



As for "new nature" the NT does not strictly say that "the believer receives a new nature" (Gr. phusis). Constitution-wise the only new thing an elect sinner obtains at regeneration is "spirit" (not "the Spirit"). If "spirit" may be referred to as "nature" I will not here determine.
The saying of "made partakers of the divine nature" is based on a mistranslation of the KJV. The Greek has not verb "to make" there, but "ginomai". "Divine" should be "God-like" or "God-kind" or something such. Some pathetic errors have ensued from this above mistranslation in KJV.


I think Tate pretty much speaks according to the truth. I know what he tries to say, although he might have expressed himself more exactly, more clearly.


Harald

[InChristAlways]

The GNT does not have a word equivalent to "gnostic(s)", nor for "gnosticism". The closest one finds in the Greek is what Paul wrote in 1Tim. 6, "the knowledge (Gr. gn&#244;sis) falsely-so-called". This "THE knowledge (falsely-so-called)", mark well an article in the Greek, was a faction within the realm of the professing community of Paul's last days. John the apostle also referred to the same faction in his 1st epistle, and probably also in the 2nd. So, the primary information concerning what sort of "gnosticism" it was that plagued Paul's and John's converts must primarily be gleaned from Paul's epistles and John's, not from "church history" accounts.

According to Paul some features of this "the gn&#244;sis" faction were:

- emphasis on (experiential) knowledge (falsely-so-called)
- oppositions against Paul's distinct message, primarily against his teachings re. the mystery/Body
- failure to attain to a thorough knowledge of Paul's total message, cp. "aimed amiss as touching the faith" (1Tim. 6:21)

Interesting post Harald. You do have a way of bringing the "greek alive".
Paul preaching to the reprobate "heathens" appeared to have a been very formidable task but the Spirit brings all Truth to those God elects. Steve

Colo 1:9 For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge [#1922] of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing [Him,] being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge [#1922] of God;

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html
1922 epignosis ep-ig'-no-sis from 1921; recognition, i.e. (by implication) full discernment, acknowledgement:--(ac-)knowledge(-ing, - ment).1921 epiginosko ep-ig-in-oce'-ko from 1909 and 1097; to know upon some mark, i.e. recognize; by implication, to become fully acquainted with, to acknowledge:--(ac-, have, take)know(-ledge, well), perceive.


The Thessalonian church was comprised primarily of Gentile converts from the pagan cults of Dionysus, Zeus, Asclepius, Aphrodite, Demeter, and perhaps most important, the cult of Cabirus. They were converts from a social and religious milieu in which gods and demons were understood to have control over virtually all aspects of life. “Threatened by powers and demons, by illnesses and unforeseen strokes of fate, one lived in suspense and fear and felt subject to overpowering forces against which one could not assert oneself.” 2 The Thessalonian converts may have thought that the gods and demons who inhabited the air were responsible for the persecution and death suffered in their church. In fear occasioned by the apparent victories of the forces of darkness over them, the Thessalonian church was concerned whether those who had died would be with the Lord at all, not simply at his parousia. Their own fate would thus also have been in doubt. It was with these specific concerns in mind that Paul wrote the 4,13-5,10 pericope, affirming that those whom God has elected are assuredly the Lord's, attested by their “meeting in the air” at the parousia to behold the victory of the conquering Christ over the forces of darkness.

[Robert R. Higby]

Gnosticism is the teaching that salvation is arrived at by acquired knowledge, not by divine regeneration.

Historically, this is NOT what the teaching of 'baptized' ('Christianese') Gnosticism was at all & I'm sure Fortner knows that fact as well as anyone. As much as I disagree with the 2nd century 'fathers' there can be no doubt by reading them what the particular heresy known as Gnosticism was (a denial of Christ's material incarnation & resurrection and also the believer's material resurrection). Gnosticism was the notion of the only reality being that of the world of ideas or the 'spirit' & denial of the significance of the material (including Christ's body & our own bodies). So why is Don promoting this revisionism to further a polemic against perceived enemies?

Gnosticism = too much emphasis on knowledge; I've heard this false analogy all my life. It makes me want to throw up.

Certainly our position here at 5solas is to affirm the reality of spiritual regeneration IN CONJUNCTION with the knowledge of the truth. It is just that our enemies are nervous when we affirm coming to the knowledge of the truth (as communicated by the Word and Spirit) as the core essence of regeneration. Some still want to define the new birth as a 'mystical power' that cannot be explained in terms of any change in thinking.

[jcasey]

Robert,

You are exactly right. This is what these men have said about us for a long time. When Daniel was here for those few months, he continued to attempt to , in his own subtle way, interpret certain scripture to be the opostles dealing with Gnosticism. He did so in an attempt to put down knowledge just as Fortner has in his above article, "Gnosticism is the teaching that salvation is arrived at by acquired knowledge, not by divine regeneration". Just as Anthony has stated, we know who Fortner and Tate are talking about. I just wish that they would at least not misrepresent us with statements like "There are a few brilliant fools today, claiming to preach the gospel, who deny the new birth". By making statements like this, no wonder his followers that read and hear his messages, think that we are preaching heresy. I don't fellowship with or even know anyone in grace circles that would deny neccesity of the new birth. I am attaching below a message by Ken Wimer that clearly defines the truth of the Old Man and the New Man. I agree with Ken when he says that a lot of confusion about the two natures could be cleared up by a correct interpretation of the Old Man and New Man.

For what it is worth, here are some more thoughts that I have regarding the controversy of the 'Old' Man and the 'New.' The more I look at this, in light of the matter of justification and imputed righteousness, I am persuaded that confusion reigns because there is a misunderstanding with regard to what the Scripture states regarding our POSITION in Christ and our EXPERIENCE in Christ. There is confusion between what is our 'Standing' with God as justified and our 'State' as unregenerate sinners until such time as the Spirit of God is pleased to come and impart LIFE, TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE, PEACE, FAITH to us, to look to Christ in whom we already STAND redeemed, justified, reconciled, and pardoned because of His shed blood. There is our LEGAL STANDING with God and satisfaction already accomplished and righteousness imputed there at the cross, and there is our EXPERIENTIAL STATE (some of the writers use 'experimental').

The point is, our standing does not change after regeneration and conversion, our state does. Our standing is one of being already acquitted, forgiven, justified and seated with Christ in the heavenlies because of Christ's finished work at Calvary, Romans 5:9-11. Our state however is changed from death to life, ignorance to knowledge, rebellion to submission, etc, John 5:24.

If this important distinction is made plain in our hearts and minds, it will affect how we approach the 'TWO MEN' of Scripture, not seeing these as two opposing experiential states (natures), but rather two different POSITIONS or STANDINGS in God, one opposed to the other. We really only have one nature- sinful and depraved, but we are in one of two positions as sinners- either in Adam or Christ (the two men).

For the sake of clarity, I believe the following principle of interpretation to be correct. The Old Man refers to our POSITIONAL DEATH IN ADAM (when he died we died) and the New Man refers to our POSITIONAL DEATH IN CHRIST (when He died we died). If the Old Man/New Man scriptures are understood in this light it makes sense to speak of what we were in Adam (guilty and under legal condemnation and sentence of death) and what we ARE now in Christ (righteous, sinless, and perfect before God), not in our experience, but in our standing with God. However, if any try to explain these in the experiential sense, then it falls apart, and cannot be defended without compromise, for who can say that they have ever had a sinless thought or action. In Christ (the NEW MAN) we died positionally, judicially, and everlastingly to the Old Man (Adam). The forgiveness of our sins at Calvary was NON-EXPERIENTIAL when it took place, being a positional finished work that is true of us, to be believed, reckoned upon. THIS IS THE WHOLE BASIS OF BEING JUSTIFIED (LEGALLY RIGHTEOUS) FROM THE CROSS.

I am persuaded that if we do not understand this distinction between positional and experiential, there will be confusion, inconsistency, and misunderstanding with passages like Romans 6:1-10 where some say that our Adamic nature (experiential) has been put to death, but then it hasn't; OR they say we are given a new nature (experientially) that is sinless, but then again, none can ever honestly attest to ever having had a sinless thought. The only proper interpretation in my view is to see Paul's statements there and elsewhere as POSITIONAL, i.e. positionally in Christ, we are without sin (BY REPRESENTATION AND IMPUTATION), even though experientially, we continue to be what we are in Adam as sinful creatures. The work of the Spirit then is to continue to show us that nothing in our experience gives us righteous acceptance with God, being yet sinners by nature, but only being in THE NEW MAN (CHRIST), as opposed to the OLD MAN (Adam).

As a case in point then, I would have us consider just one verse of Scripture in Romans 6:6:
ROMANS 6:6 -- (1) "Knowing this, (2) that our old man (3) was crucified with Him, (4) that the body of sin (5) might be destroyed [rendered inoperative, via faith] (Romans 6:6).
1. "Knowing this." The truth of our justification at the cross and imputed righteousness there by the blood of Christ is objective TRUTH revealed by the Spirit of God in the Word and therefore to be known, believed, and submitted to as revealed. This is OBJECTIVE FAITH and not true because I believe it, but rather I am made to believe it because it is the TRUTH, revealed by the Gospel and the Spirit of God.
As an example, I have come to know, scripturally, that the penalty of my sin was paid by the Savior, on the Cross. I am brought by the Spirit of God to believe that wonderful objective fact, not only that my sins were put away, but also that the very righteousness of God was imputed there, and my justification and full legal reconciliation was accomplished there at the cross. The Spirit continues to bring me into submission to Christ crucified and His righteousness, and I am thereby brought continually to trust in and embrace the One who accomplished the saving work on our behalf. This is the work that the Spirit began in me experientially at regeneration, or is called the new birth, and continues throughout my spiritual life, Philippians 1:6. However, the change was in my experiential state before God, but not my position before Him.

1. Redemption, imputation of righteousness, justification, reconciliation, propitiation, pardon of sins were POSITIONALLY true of me before I knew, or was taught of the Spirit of God. Conversion did not change my standing in them, but graciously my heart, will and affection toward them.
2. In time I am brought to see, know, embrace, and submit to the truth by the Spirit of God in repentance or faith.

2. "That our old man." Here again, the 'old man' is what we were positionally in Adam- the legal condemnation and sentence of death was crucified with Christ. We are no longer under the penalty, curse, and condemnation of sin positionally because Christ bore that sin and condemnation. We are however still under the effects of sin and death, much like a disease may be cured, but a person left maimed for life. Nonetheless, our confidence, in spite of the lingering effects is that God dealt with our sin positionally in Christ when He took our place in death.
In light of this then, we must understand the Old Man and the New Man as the Representative (Positional) heads- ADAM and CHRIST.In Scripture, these are the TWO MEN who are constantly set one in opposition to the other. The one OLD MAN is the head of lost humanity, the other NEW MAN is the Head of the new-creation, the Church of God's elect. The one is earthly, the other heavenly. The latter half of Romans 5 deals with these two Adams, and the same subject continues on into Romans 6: "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19). There is the old man of death, and the New Man of Life. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ [all those who are in Him] shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22).

3. "Was crucified with Him." Positionally, the elect were separated from Adam at the cross. It is there that God dealt with sin and its penalty, that He might be a just God and Savior. Even though now, as born in this world, the elect by their experience suffer the consequences of being sons of Adam, "dead in trespasses and sins," positionally, before God, they are forgiven, justified, and reconciled with Him already by the death of His Son. In their experience, until regeneration, they in their own hearts and minds are not reconciled to God (Colossians 1:21) and are by NATURE (experientially NOT positionally) children of wrath, Ephesians 2:3). Even after regeneration, although changed from an experiential state of death to life, rebellion to peace, yet, they continue to suffer the effects of being sons of Adam, although no longer under his headship positionally. The Old Man crucified with HIM is certainly not a reference to sin in our experience being put away, but positionally in Christ, put away legally. The wages of sin being death, and we being identified with sin's source, fallen Adam, God condemned sin and therefore us in Christ on the Cross-He having been made sin for us (by imputation). "I have been crucified with Christ." "God sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Gal. 2:20; Rom. 8:3). All of this by representation, IMPUTATION, and positionally before God.
4. "That the body of sin." The body of sin is not our physical body, nor our sin nature, but the whole body of sin (our guilt and condemnation in Adam) put to death at the cross.
5. "Might be destroyed." Sin with its curse and condemnation, as far as the elect of God are concerned has been destroyed! They were all saved from the penalty of sin by His death (positionally or by representation), and at regeneration they are saved from the power of sin's effects experientially, being delivered from spiritual death, given life, grace, faith in the knowledge of Christ in truth. For this reason, we are not to live as if under Adam's headship (the Old Man) but by the Spirit of God, as we are in truth under the headship of Christ (the New Man). Since the legal condemnation of sin has been "annulled," "put out of action," its power broken, by the blood of the Lord Jesus, so the Spirit of God now causes us to live lives in submission to the NEW MAN- Christ and that righteousness that He established and the Father imputed to us in His death.
In our death with Christ on the Cross, God separated us from the first Adam, recreating us (positionally) in the Last Adam. Freeing us from Adam via death and burial, He identified us with Christ in His resurrection and ascended Life, being already justified by His death. This is the new creation spoken of in 2 Cor. 5:17. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation." Positionally identified with Christ in His death, burial, resurrection and ascension, we are now seated, at the right hand of the Father. "God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath made us alive together with Christ (by grace ye are saved), and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:4-6). Experientially, now, I do wait by the Spirit for the day when I shall be entirely freed from the presence of sin in my glorified state, Romans 8:22,23. I make no pretense of any sinless, righteous nature in me, but by the Spirit of God in me, see that IN me dwelleth no good thing, and that ALL my righteousness is in THE NEW MAN (CHRIST), and His finished work at Calvary. While I wait my final glorification, already purchased at the cross, I rest in Christ and His imputed righteousness, by His grace, revealed in the Gospel, from faith to faith- Romans 1:16,17
Ken Wimer

[harald]

While Ken Wimer admiringly attempts to glorify Christ in His Person, blood, and death, as the sole righteousness/justification before God of God's elect he nonetheless denies, through contradiction, Christ's total work of salvation by denying what he refers to as a new righteous nature. Which better could be called "the new spirit", or perhaps more scripturally it could be referred to as "spirit" (John 3:6). His reasoning of "Old Man" being Adam and "New Man" being Christ does not stand the scrutiny of the Pauline revelation. Because Paul in Ephesians 5 reminded his target audience that they were to "by themselves" (middle voice in Gr.) put away "the old man/manhood/humanity".


22 To by yourselves once for all put off from you, as pertaining to the former
conversation, the old manhood, the one being progressively corrupted more and more as pertaining to the desires characterized by very deceitfulness,

In this matter it appears Wimer would be "a teacher of law (God's Word)" but does not didactically nor epistemically master his subject even to begin with. This ought not to be so, seeing that he officially holds the office of "pastor", which office in the Pauline epistles means nothing less and nothing more than a "teacher-shepherd/pastor" (Eph. 4:11).

The NT teaching that a converted elect is possessed of a new righteous spirit (not Spirit) does not mean that the total person who possesses said spirit (not Spirit) is uncapable of committing sin in his/her character and conduct. Ken Wimer as "pastor" and professed believer of Christ's gospel ought to have understood this. This new spirit is never referred to as a "nature" (Gr. phusis), unless I recall amiss. This new spirit is righteous, holy, just as its Originator, the Triune Godhead, is righteous and holy. It is, in and of itself, incapable of committing sin. The Spirit (of God and Christ) is righteous and holy, and just so is His product in re-generation, "spirit" (John 3:6). So, "spirit", which resides in each and every converted elect of God, cannot possibly commit sin.

If someone is not possessed of "spirit" he neither possesses the Spirit of Christ, and consequently is not His. Rom. 8:9.


Harald

[Robert R. Higby]

Thanks so much, Ken! I agree completely. Our experience, in fact, will NEVER match our imputed position in any way for all eternity! For that to happen DIVINITY would have to be infused into us and we would have to BECOME GOD. ALL of the divine person and work of Jesus Christ is imputed to us in justification, nothing less.

Harald, your division of 'nature' and 'spirit' appears to be semantic unless you can explain further the difference. 'Spirit possession' is not mystical and I don't know how such an experience can be evaluated except judged by allegiance to the truth of the gospel.

[harald]

Bob,

I did not explicitly create a "division" between "nature" and "spirit". I just stated "spirit" is not called "nature", I meant in the NT primarily. I have not taken time to ponder whether "spirit", i.e. the new spirit, may properly be referred to as a nature. But I know that when some talk about "a new righteous nature" (which they say cannot sin) they apparently refer to "spirit". As you notice I here distinguish between the Spirit and spirit, using capital S with Jehovah the Spirit. Jesus Christ literally says in John 3:6, "The thing having been generated of the flesh as source is flesh, and the thing having been generated of the Spirit as source is spirit". So, here the generation-product of the Spirit is by Christ called "spirit". In fact, just now I did a KJV search on "nature", and I found no case where "nature" is a synonym or exact equivalent to this thing which Christ calls "spirit" here in 3:6b. "spirit" may be said to be, among other things, a life-principle.

I did not say that possession of "spirit" is mystical. And I did not call said possession an "experience". But I will not here object to calling possession of "spirit" an experience. I agree that such possession is evidenced, among other things, by allegiance to the truth of the gospel of Christ. While "spirit" is a life-principle it is, moreover, also an intelligent truth-principle, a truth-principle which is primarily taken up with absolute truth. It does absolutely not rejoice in a lie. "spirit" is, moreover, a governing principle and an operative principle. But "spirit" itself is being animated, empowered, and operated upon by the Spirit of Christ.

I believe that to deny this righteous new spirit, and to say that regenerate elect man is nothing but pure flesh, is the same as to deny Christ's saving work for His own. It is a wicked notion, a serious and gross false teaching, one which myself will oppose and expose and condemn if necessity be laid on me. To say regenerate man is but mere flesh is to contradict itself the term "re-generation" and all that it entails. Here comes to mind Paul's words in 2Timothy 3, "denying the power thereof".


Harald

[Gideon523]

Please dont think there is an agenda
just trying to speak truth, Bob wrote,
Thanks so much, Ken! I agree completely. Our experience, in fact, will NEVER match our imputed position in any way for all eternity! For that to happen DIVINITY would have to be infused into us and we would have to BECOME GOD. ALL of the divine person and work of Jesus Christ is imputed to us in justification, nothing less.

Yes Bob and Ken, you deny regeneration and what regeneration is
that the person is given a new nature,
you have a gospel with no substance,
a legal fiction carried through from your error
of the work of Christ at the cross.
Harold I am very much in agreement with you on your
post on this letter of Ken Wimers.
Gideon.

[jcasey]

Yes Bob and Ken, you deny regeneration and what regeneration is
that the person is given a new nature,
you have a gospel with no substance,
a legal fiction carried through from your error
of the work of Christ at the cross.
Harold I am very much in agreement with you on your
post on this letter of Ken Wimers.
Gideon.

Harold,

According to what you have written so far, I don't think that I would dissagree with you. It seems that the differences that you are making between the nature and spirit would only be a difference in semantics between you and I. The statement that Gideon made in the quote above, is reminiscence of some of Daniel's statements. He called the Righteouness of Christ at the cross, wherein all my hopes lies, a legal pasted on righteousness. Daniel says that Christ Imputed Righteousness at the cross only guantees that this new righteous nature that they are speaking off will be infused in you at regeneration. Harold, we made they same argument that you made in your statement above and thought that it was only semantics that separated us, but we were wrong. This new nature that they are talking about is more than the Spirit or Holy Principal that is given at regeneration. I sit down for an hour and explained my belief concerning the new birth, regeneration and conversion and when I was finished Daniel told me that I was missing something. The something just happen to be the very righteous nature of Christ that cannot sin. Daniel and Gedeon are not talking about what you are talking about in your above statement. If you have time, go back and read the two sermons by Daniel that are posted on this site. Daniel explains it better than I because that is where his hope is, it's not on what Christ accomplished at the cross. What Christ accomplished at the cross is only a guantee that his very nature will be infused in you at regeneration and he makes it clear that he's not talking about Spirit or Holy Principal.

[harald]

Jim,

Thanks for the above post. I indeed hope we are in agreement. And I hope I may have misjudged Wimer as respects his belief and teaching. However I do think he should have expressed himself more clearly, scripturally, precisely, as touching the new man and all this. On justification before God he is clear as far as I can discern.

Now. I believe the things that we now are touching upon are very important. I have not yet read what Daniel has taught. But I will in brief state my belief and understanding, some may be repetition.

As to the elect of God, their justification before God the Judge. I believe this took place in historical time, when Jesus Christ hung on the tree of Calvary. All of God's elect of every age were then constituted forensically/legally righteous in God's sight. Christ in His Person, blood and faith/faithfulness, there and then became their all in all as touching their justification before God. God's elect were once and for all constituted perfectly righteous, savingly justified, in God's sight there and then. And at no other time, no other place. No truly converted elect denies this. (Even some false converts know this fact aright, and accordingly confess it. ) All pertinent prepositions in the God-breathed Greek Scriptures apply to Christ and His finished work when it comes to Justification Before God of God's elect. I mean: they were justified IN Christ and IN His blood, THROUGH (the instrumentality of) Christ and His redemption act, ON THE BASIS OF Christ's finished work, ON ACCOUNT OF Christ's righteousness imputed, OUT OF CONSIDERATION OF nothing but Christ and His Satisfaction.

The Holy Spirit and His work of working true faith in the hearts of God's elect has absolutely nothing to contribute or add to the business of their being constituted righteous before God. God's elect's saving justification before God equals Christ (and His faith/faithfulness/obedience & blood) plus nothing minus nothing, NOT Christ plus the Holy Spirit's inwrought faith (towards/in Christ), NOT Christ plus the new righteous spirit (or "new righteous nature", if you will) infused into the elect by God the Spirit at the moment of re-generation.
SO, God the Holy Spirit, the Glorifier of Jesus Christ, will NEVER EVER own (set seal to) the religionist and Protestantic (and what more) notion of justification before God by or through "faith in Christ" at the point of conversion. NEVER. Do you and I agree on this, Jim? I presume I and Wimer agree on this. At least I have discerned that Wimer's "mentor" (if he may be called such here), T David Simpson, and myself agree on this matter. Steve Baloga has also expressed good agreement in this.

Then as to regeneration, and the Spirit's product, the new righteous spirit. Regeneration and its product, could not have been a reality in the case of God's elect were it not for Christ and His finished work on Calvary, not to forget the resurrection of Christ. Justification before God in and through Christ at Calvary demanded the Spirit's being sent from the Father and the Son to infuse life ("spirit") into the elect while still spiritually dead in sins and lapses. Paul says (in Rom. 8) that the "spirit" (the Holy Spirit NOT meant) is life ON ACCOUNT OF ... yes, Righteousness. Meaning Christ's Righteousness, imputed at Christ's sacrificial death to all of God's elect of whatever age, both pre- and post Calvary.

The thing which Christ Himself calls "spirit" in John 3:6b is not His very nature. It cannot be. But, I believe it may be said that it is sort of a reproduction of His holy human nature. It is like unto His holy humanity. I now talk about the non-material side/part of the humanity. Also, "spirit" does also have much affinity with its originator, the Spirit. If in fact the Holy Spirit generates spirit then it cannot be wholly unlike Him either.

This was some of my mindedness on these things. Hope to talk more if God wills.



Harald

[jcasey]

Harold,

I still see us both going in the same direction. You are not saying anything that would cause me to think that you would believe what Daniel taught. I have to run now. Hope to talk later.

Jim

[Gideon523]

Harold,

I still see us both going in the same direction. You are not saying anything that would cause me to think that you would believe what Daniel taught. I have to run now. Hope to talk later.

Jim

Jim you need to run,
because Mark daniels says virtually the same as Harold
on the regenerated state of the Elect,
you are Mr Casey exactly the same as Ken Wimer
Regeneration to you is not real just a word,
read again what Ken wrote it is full of holes.
Gideon.

[Brandan Kraft]

Boy, that was really intelligent. Gideon, please stay quiet if you can't support your accusations with evidence.

[Gideon523]

Boy, that was really intelligent. Gideon, please stay quiet if you can't support your accusations with evidence.

Not making any
accusations unlike the starter of thread
and Mr Casey,
who accuses Fortner and Daniels,
Brandan truth as fallen in the street
with you
you think more of the oppinions of ones
you have surrounded yourself with,
than the Truth of Christ.
If you cannot see Ken Wimer post here
as denying the reallity of regeneration
[new creature]now,
Brandan its you that has not put forth
any Bible evidence to support your false
accusations of Fortner Daniels etc'c,
lets see some.
Gideon.

[Robert R. Higby]

I trust that all serious thinkers here know that this is a bold-faced lie: the notion that the moderators deny regeneration in the power of the Holy Spirit.

On Harald's point--the distinction between 'S'pirit and 's'pirit that you make shows that those who use the word 'nature' with reference to the renewed man in the Holy Spirit do not necessarily mean anything different.

[GraceAmbassador]

I trust that all serious thinkers here know that this is a bold-faced lie: the notion that the moderators deny regeneration in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Absolutely Bob! I don't think I could have the presumption to think that Pastor Dan was thinking about us; if he was, however, he lied about us. We are definitely not the group of which he was making reference.

Anyone who would say such a thing about us is lying and the truth of God does not abide in him!

Milt

[lionovjudah]

Certainly our position here at 5solas is to affirm the reality of spiritual regeneration IN CONJUNCTION with the knowledge of the truth. It is just that our enemies are nervous when we affirm coming to the knowledge of the truth (as communicated by the Word and Spirit) as the core essence of regeneration. Some still want to define the new birth as a 'mystical power' that cannot be explained in terms of any change in thinking.

Bob, I believe this is where people may become confused. The work of the Holy Spirit is first and foremost quickening from death to life. THis is Immediate without means.

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done' but according to His mercy He saved us by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5).

This is an actual change of nature, not just a change of mind, or thinking or knowledge. The regenerate person is made a new creation in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:10; I Cor. 5:17; Eph. 4:24). Regeneration is not natural but supernatural.


2 Timothy 1:10 says that the gospel brings "life and immortality to light." Be certain this does nto say it GIVES life and immortality, but brings it.

The Gospel is the means to give knowledge .

Act 26:18To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.



Joe

[lionovjudah]

Gnosticism is the teaching that salvation is arrived at by acquired knowledge, not by divine regeneration.

Historically, this is NOT what the teaching of 'baptized' ('Christianese') Gnosticism was at all & I'm sure Fortner knows that fact as well as anyone. As much as I disagree with the 2nd century 'fathers' there can be no doubt by reading them what the particular heresy known as Gnosticism was (a denial of Christ's material incarnation & resurrection and also the believer's material resurrection). Gnosticism was the notion of the only reality being that of the world of ideas or the 'spirit' & denial of the significance of the material (including Christ's body & our own bodies). So why is Don promoting this revisionism to further a polemic against perceived enemies?

Gnosticism = too much emphasis on knowledge; I've heard this false analogy all my life. It makes me want to throw up.

Bob, this is only a part of what it entails. And yes it is focused on some secret knowledge.

Gnostic beliefs:

The Nag Hummadi find revealed that there was a broad range of beliefs among the various independent Gnostic systems or schools. However, the following points are believed to be generally accurate throughout the movement: Their Role: They believed that they alone truly understood Christ's message, and that other streams of thought within Christianity had misinterpreted Jesus' mission and sayings.Gnosis: Knowledge to them was not an intellectual exercise; it was not a passive understanding of some aspect of spirituality. Rather, knowledge had a redeeming and liberating function that helped the individual break free of bondage to the world.Deity: The Supreme Father God or Supreme God of Truth is remote from human affairs; he is unknowable and undetectable by human senses. She/he created a series of supernatural but finite beings called Aeons. One of these was Sophia, a virgin, who in turn gave birth to an defective, inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge. (Demiurge means "public craftsman" in Greek.) This lower God is sometimes called Yaldabaoth or Ialdabaoth Jaldabaoth -- from Aramaic words meaning "begetter of the Heavens." This is Jehovah, the God of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). He is portrayed as the creator of the earth and its life forms. He is viewed by Gnostics as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in compassion, and prone to genocide. The Demiurge "thinks that he is supreme. His pride and incompetence have resulted in the sorry state of the world as we know it, and in the blind and ignorant condition of most of mankind." Duality of spirit and body: Spirit is of divine origin and good; the body is inherently earthly and evil. Gnostics were hostile to the physical world, to matter and the human body. But they believed that trapped within some people's bodies were the sparks of divinity or seeds of light that were supplied to humanity by Sophia.Salvation: A person attains salvation by learning secret knowledge of their spiritual essence: a divine spark of light or spirit. They then have the opportunity to escape from the prison of their bodies at death. Their soul can ascend to be reunited with the Supreme God at the time of their death. Gnostics divided humanity into three groups: The spiritual, who would be saved irrespective of their behavior while on earth.The Soulish, who could be saved if they followed the Gnostic path.The carnal who are hopelessly lost.Evil: They did not look upon the world as having been created perfectly and then having degenerated as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. Rather the world was seen as being evil at the time of its origin, because it had been created by an inferior God.Snake Symbol: Some Gnostic sects honored the snake. They did not view the snake as a seducer who led the first couple into sinful behavior. Rather, they saw him/it as a liberator who brought knowledge to Adam and Eve by convincing them to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and thus to become fully human.Christ: The role of the redeemer in Gnostic belief is heavily debated at this time. Gnostics seem to have looked upon Christ as a revealer or liberator, rather than a savior or judge. His purpose was to spread knowledge which would free individuals from the Demiurge's control and allow them to return to their spiritual home with the Supreme God at death. Some Gnostic groups promoted Docetism, the belief that Christ was pure spirit and only had a phantom body; Jesus just appeared to be human to his followers. They reasoned that a true emissary from the Supreme God could not have been overcome by the evil of the world, and to have suffered and died. These beliefs were considered heresy by many non-Gnostic Christians. Some Gnostics believed that Christ's resurrection occurred at or before Jesus' death on the cross. They defined his resurrection as occurring when his spirit was liberated from his body. Many Gnostics believed that Jesus had both male and female disciples.The Universe: This is divided into three kingdoms:

1. The "Earthly Cosmos": The earth is the center of the universe, and is composed of the world that we know of and an underworld. It is surrounded by air and by 7 concentric heavenly spheres: one for each of the Moon, Venus, Mercury, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. (Although the planet Uranus is visible to the naked eye, it was not recognized as a planet in ancient times.) Beyond Saturn resides Leviathan, a snake coiled in a single circle, devouring its own tail. Within these spheres live demonic, tyrannical entities called Archons. Beyond them lies Paradise which contains the "Tree of Life", the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", and the flaming, turning sword of Genesis 3:24. Beyond Paradise was the sphere of the fixed stars, divided into the 12 signs of the zodiac.
2. The "Intermediate Kingdom is composed of an inner blue circle of darkness and an outer yellow ring of light. Within these rings is a sphere which is the realm of Sophia.
3. The "Kingdom of God" consists of two spheres: an outer one of the unknowable Supreme God, and inner ring of the Son.

SO according to this, if one elevates knowledge there will be a tendancy to view it as Gnosticism

[harald]

Joe Kinney writes

Bob, I believe this is where people may become confused. The work of the Holy Spirit is first and foremost quickening from death to life. THis is Immediate without means.

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done' but according to His mercy He saved us by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5).

This is an actual change of nature, not just a change of mind, or thinking or knowledge. The regenerate person is made a new creation in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:10; I Cor. 5:17; Eph. 4:24). Regeneration is not natural but supernatural.



Joe. I did a short but serious study of the Spirit's sanctifying work in and upon God's elect just recently. This work myself would not say is first and foremost quickening (from death to life). But His work begins with it, no denying. Twice at least the NT uses a term such as "sanctification of Spirit" (Gr. hagiasmoo Pneumatos), i.e. "Spirit-sanctification". 2Thess. 2:13, 1Peter 1:2. This progressive sanctifying work begins with quickening. Yes, I did say progressive. It is progressive on the part of the sanctifying Spirit. Hebrews 10:14 in the Greek informs it is ongoing or progressive. The Spirit's sanctifying work in and upon God's elect does not stop with quickening. Another important stage of it is heart circumcision. Quickening would be meaningless without heart circumcision, and heart circumcision meaningless without quickening.

I did a word study on paliggenesia in Titus 3:5. Lit. a re-genesis. Its meaning or sense is that of "restoration" or "re-origination". The Greek noun which literally would translate into "re-generation" is not used in the GNT, it is "anagenn&#234;sis". Its cognate verb "anagenna&#244;" ("I re-generate", "I beget anew") is found in the GNT {the prefix ana- may also carry the sense of "upwards", cp. anabainoo - "I am going up"}. The Greek construct of Tit. 3:5 is such that "washing of regeneration" (KJV) and "renewing of the Holy Ghost" (KJV) both refer to one and the same operation. The translation you quoted adds a "the" before "renewing" without warrant. It is not there in the Greek, which has the following wording:

dia loutrou paliggenesias kai anakainooseoos Pneumatos Hagiou

lit. "through washing of restoration and qualitative renewing of Spirit Holy"

or in more understandable English, "through a washing of restoration and qualitative Holy Spirit renewing"

This indeed seems to speak of change or renewing-restoration of "nature". I myself come to think of what has been spoken of as "the restoration of the image of God (the "Imago Dei") in man". Therefore I can agree with your saying

This is an actual change of nature, not just a change of mind, or thinking or knowledge.

This "washing of restoration and qualitative Holy Spirit renewing" is not exactly the same as "quickening" (alive-making, only the verb "zoopoieoo" is found in GNT, no noun). Strictly speaking "quickening" is the Spirit's (creative) in-breathing of "spirit" (John 3:6), i.e. "the spirit of the life" (Rom. 8:2). The restoration-renewing is intimately connected to "quickening". Logically "quickening" is the prior thing.


Harald